A. A player who has thrown from another player's lie shall receive two penalty throws, withouta warning. The offending player shall complete the hole as if the other player's lie were hisor her own. No throws shall be replayed.

B. The player whose lie was played by the offending player shall be given an approximate lie asclose to the original lie as possible, as determined by the offending player, a majority of hisor her group, or an official. See section 803.11 C if the disc has been declared lost.

I know it would be the cheesiest thing ever for a player to throw OB in the water and then intentionally go play off of another player's lie, but doesn't this rule create a loophole that players can exploit if their throw is OB or their disc is lost? I mean, they would have to pretend it was an accident to avoid DQ under rule 3.3, but isn't there a possibility tthat a dishonest player could benefit as long as they pretended it was not intentional?

Also, the part of the rule that references rule 803.11C, as part of section B of the rule, appears to be referring to the disc of the player whose lie was played by the offending player. Is that possible? Are they saying that the "victim" whose lie got played, if they had said his disc was lost, gets those penalty strokes removed upon discovering that his disc was thrown or picked up by the other player? Or is it saying to ignore rule 8.10 if the offending player's disc is actually lost, and make him rethrow? Something else?

If the offending player's disc resulting in the lie that the offending player did NOT play was OB or lost (e.g., the offending player threw OB and then played off another's lie, and the disc is discovered OB thereafter), do they have to count penalty throws for the OB or lost disc IN ADDITION to the penalty throws incurred for playing off another player's lie?

Player A walks up to player B's lie. Player B throws, picks up player A's disc and the group proceeds to look for Player A's disc. Three minutes later, the group declares player A's disc lost. Player A gets a penalty stroke for losing a disc and returns to the previous lie and throws. Then player B realizes that he has Player A's disc in his bag. Player A would then subtract two strokes from his score (the penalty stroke and the original throw). Player B would then add two throws to his score for the hole.

If player B's original disc were OB, I would not also assess that penalty stroke. I would assume that the OBness isn't discovered until after player B threw from the wrong lie. If player B "completes the hole as if the other player's lie were his own" then there would never be a time when he had an appropriate time to asses the penalty. Also, the RC has set a pattern of not wanting to asses double penalties (see the 2m/unplayable lie situation).

So does part B of rule 803.10 mean that if Player B discovered the disc in his bag after player A's disc was declared lost, but before Player A rethrew from his original lie, that Player A would only subtract the one throw penalty that was assessed and throw from an approximate lie near where his disc was picked up? Or would he get to subtract two throws and throw from the approximate lie (thus greatly benefitting)?

I guess that's an issue with how 803.11C interplays with 803.10B. 803.11C says to remove two throws, assuming that the player threw from the origianl lie, and not an approximate lie near where the lost disc was picked up. Or maybe 803.10B says for Player A to follow the procedure under 803.11, and throw from the original lie, and not the approximate pickup spot lie, when his disc was declared lost, regardless of whether the mistake was discovered before he threw. What do you think? 803.10B only references part C of rule 803.11, not the whole rule.

803.11 Lost DiscA. A disc shall be declared lost if the player cannot locate it within three minutes after arriving at the spot where it was last seen by the group or an official. Two players or an official must note when the timing of three minutes begins. All players of the group must, upon request, assist in searching for the disc for the full three minutes before the disc is declared lost. The disc is considered lost immediately upon the expiration of the three minute time limit

B. A player whose disc is declared lost shall receive one penalty throw. If the throw was made from the tee, the player will re-tee for the next shot. If not made from the tee, the group will determine the approximate lie from which the throw was made, and the player will throw again from that lie. The director may designate a drop zone for lost discs on a particular hole. If a drop zone is provided, the player may throw from there instead of the previous lie or the tee. In all cases the original throw plus one penalty throw shall be counted in the player's score.

C. If it is discovered, prior to the completion of the tournament, that a player's disc thatwas declared lost had been removed or taken, then the player shall have two throws removed from his or her score.

D. A marker disc that is lost shall be replaced in its approximate lie as agreed to by amajority of the group or an official with no penalty.

Last edited by jenb on Tue Feb 01, 2011 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A strict interpretation of the rules wouldn't allow for Player A to throw from the approximate lie. Once a disc is declared lost, you can't undeclare it lost, even if it is found. So, if player A said, "ok, my disc is lost" and then immediately after, player B said "oh, here it is, in my bag. sorry about that". Then, in theory, player A should return to the original lie, throw again, and it would basically be doing a do-over.

However, I think it is likely that the rules would be ignored, and Player A would just throw from an approximate lie, with no penalty. I think this is probably more in the spirit of the rules, even if it doesn't stick to the letter of the rules.

So, if player A said, "ok, my disc is lost" and then immediately after, player B said "oh, here it is, in my bag. sorry about that". Then, in theory, player A should return to the original lie, throw again, and it would basically be doing a do-over.

If it happened that way, Player A would get the lost disc penalty and rethrow completing the hole then get 2 throws removed from his score on that hole. Player B would get a 2-throw penalty for Interference picking up Player A's disc.